She's a witch!
Posted on 05/15/2006 5:29:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
When a U.S. district court ruled last December that the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district could not require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, opponents of intelligent design thought the issue had been settled—not just in Pennsylvania, but also across the entire country. Well, their celebrations may have been premature, unless school policies are somehow exempted from the requirements of democracy.
Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”
By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.
Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.
These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.
Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.
Father Richard Neuhaus captured this in the March issue of First Things. The “controversy,” he wrote, “is composed of a complex mixture of science, religion, culture, and politics.” This “complex mixture,” which involves every aspect of human life, cannot be settled by a single judge’s opinion or by the Darwinists’ propaganda. People simply know better, and they want to have a say in how their children are educated.
This is true not only of intelligent design. The same dynamic is at work in the embryonic stem-cell research debate. The scientific establishment insists that it must operate without interference from those it deems “irrational,” like Christians it considers enemies of progress.
Yet 56 percent in the same survey agreed that “scientific research doesn’t pay enough attention to the moral values of society.” Fifty-two percent agreed that this research creates as many problems as solutions. For a group aspiring to god-like status, like scientists, this is bad news.
But it cannot be otherwise. Science does not operate independently of the larger culture. Scientists are not exempt from, as Neuhaus puts it, paying their respects to democracy. Thinking otherwise is not science: It is scientism, the ideology that regards science as the only way to the truth. And if this survey is any indication, Americans don’t buy it.
That’s why debates over science and culture will continue. They will continue until the scientific establishment—and the courts—acknowledge the limits of what science can and cannot tell us, and when it begins to give a say to the people on how they want their children educated.
On a purely technical level, as related to science you are correct.... that is if one is Spock the fictional Vulcan and can separate the logic from the moral and emotional analyses that Humans make when forming their opinions.
It hardly requires a "Spock-like" discipline, nor does it require a "separation" from emotion, to point out that several things which dishonestly try to pretend to be science, are not science. "Intelligent Design", for example, tries to present itself *as* science, and get taught *in* science class, in order to give the false impression that it has met the standards of science and should therefore be as trusted as real science, when in fact it has *not* done any of the things which would be required in order to actually *be* science.
Many self imagined objective science types can express quite a bit of out-rage when attacking a "notion" as "not of science", denoting moral and emotional out-rage...
The "moral and emotional outrage" is due to the gross dishonesty exhibited by the people who spread lies about real science, and who misrepresent their beliefs *as* science in order to mislead and propagandize.
which of course raises the question as to whether they have truly reasoned said "notion" from a truly scientific basis.
There's nothing wrong with having a negative emotional reaction to dishonesty. Anyone with a sense of honor and a respect for the truth feels an emotional revulsion towards that kind of intentional dishonesty. And you are making the mistake of confusing the unemotional process that went into *determining* that the IDers are misrepresenting their material, with the emotional response triggered by the realization that they're engaging in cynical distortions on a grand scale.
Look, just because Archimedes was so emotionally excited about the usefulness of his realization about how to measure the volumes of irregular objects (via water displacement) that he jumped out his bath and ran naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!", that hardly means that this, in your words, "of course raises the question as to whether he had truly reasoned said 'notion' of volume displacement from a truly scientific basis" -- the emotional response was in *reaction* to the implications of the scientific conclusion, it wasn't the *cause* of them. And so it is with the emotional revulsion which honorable scientists feel after they have assessed just how badly the "ID" people are engaging in gross dishonesty and misrepresentation.
We humans can't escape personal bias; we can at best account for it and factor such biases in as we strive to be as truthful, objective and as transparent as possible given the natures of our various circumstances and belief systems!
That's nice. Now if you find anything wrong in the analysis of the problems with "ID" and why it is not actually the "science" it claims to be, feel free to point them out. But simply waving your hands about "gosh, maybe bias might have led someone astray somewhere" just doesn't even begin to cut it.
<< Now if you find anything wrong in the analysis of the problems with "ID" and why it is not actually the "science" it claims to be, feel free to point them out. But simply waving your hands about "gosh, maybe bias might have led someone astray somewhere" just doesn't even begin to cut it. >>
My favorite argument -- which I have seen repeatedly in here over the years -- is in two parts. To paraphrase:
1) ID is not about God or the Bible, so why do you "evos" keep pushing that lie about ID?
2) If you want to keep ID out of the science classroom, that just proves that you hate God and the Bible.
I would not be surprised to see a response to THIS message -- which merely highlights what I have seen happen in these debates -- with some variation of one or both of those arguments being used against me.
Oh Goodness. Yeah, I hardly know where to start with questions. I suppose I could ask what some of the leading hypothesis for abiogenesis? Gosh....pretend I'm a dummy, which I am, on this subject anyway. Can you just give me some basics, and more easily digestible stuff, and let me start formulating some questions from there.
Thanks, Ichnuemon.
Oh, thanks for the link too!
If you are going to cite ancient Greeks, remember that many of these "founding" thinkers of mathematics, logic and reason thought that they could connect and join with the divine by the use of said tools. Pythagoras saw divinity thru the use of geometry for example.
How odd that modern science types use those same tools from the divine minded Greek founders of Logic and Reason in attempt to explain away the numinous, the divine and assumed superstitions; the very same the ancients embraced.
The human element BIAS, certainly explains this conundrum!
1) ID is not about God or the Bible, so why do you "evos" keep pushing that lie about ID?
2) If you want to keep ID out of the science classroom, that just proves that you hate God and the Bible.
Well ID is creationsism as described in Genesis. Documents submitted in a court of law as evidence clearly states this connection by the very people who synthesized and propagated the concept of ID. It has been proven in a court of law that ID is creationism with a fuzzy box where God would be mentioned.
And any scientist, not just evolutionary biologists want ID out of the classroom because it corrupts the very core of what science is all about. Moreover, to label such scientists as God hating Bible burners shows how foolish you are. Religious scientists know the difference between the two and are aware of the dangers of mixing them inappropriately. For example, I am a Christian and am an ordained Elder. I do not see a conflict with Christianity and evolution, nor does my faith try to chain God in a book rather than acknowledge how vastly mysterious He is. Creationism is a primitivization of Christianity and transforms a grand religion into book idolatry.
You're serious? Evolution does not depend on the success or failure of biogenesis? Um, if biogenesis fails, there would be no life to evolve. There has to be a connection. You meant something less obvious than what was stated?
That is simplistic. Live is unquestionably here.
The method by which life started is independent of the theory of evolution. Here is a good illustration, from a post by Dimensio:
I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.From a post by Dimensio here.
a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
If, as you say, common descent "rests squarely on a specific view of the origin of life", then only one of the above hypothesis can be true for common descent to have occured. Please identify which of the five must be true for common descent to have occured, and explain why any two of the other options would prevent common descent from occuring.b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.
Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.
Unless we believe we live under oppression and tyranny, then there's no room for anything other than science, which is fine by me, except that science doesn't have all the answers, and as Neuhaus puts it.. Scientists are not exempt from paying their respects to democracy.
Over half of all Britons believed evolution to be 'the best description for the development of life'
So does this mean Americans have more of an imago Dei than Britons?
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
"But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after.
"World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."
For some, ID is a step along this path.
Sounds like something out of the Koran, not anything I am familar with.
Where is this stuff coming from?
OK, I suspected that Ichneumon meant something other than what the most obvious reading of his statement was. I can see that the theories are independent of each other.
I am glad we have some agreement. That is sometimes rare between opposing sides on these threads.
I try to post the most accurate statements I can, with as little invective as possible.
But, sometimes my patience is tried; and you know what they say about the patience of an archaeologist!
What you probably didn't know:
Archaeologists date any old thing!
Coral Gables, if I recognize that particular passage ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
Save us from those who would save us!Art Hoppe
Oh, that's bad.
Archaeologists date any old thing!
That's funny!
Just want to be sure that my earlier post is taken in good humor, as that is how it was meant.
Do you know anything about the Caddo Indian Mounds found around Murfreesboro Arkansas? There are some very interesting burial sites around there. Do you know of any other interesting acheological discoveries in Arkansas? I'd like to look into some stuff for my kids since we live here now. They would probably love to ask you some questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.